Tag: BuzzFeed

Articles posted last night by Politico and BuzzFeedrevealed similarities in Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch‘s academic writing with sources he reportedly failed to acknowledge. The articles gave examples of how Gorsuch’s 2006 book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia used some of the same language as a 1984 Indiana Law Journal article by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma.

There is a problem with the accusation, the person Gorsuch allegedly plagiarised says he clearly did not

Kuzma herself, however, doesn’t have a problem with it. She said in a statement on the matter:

I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the “Baby/Infant Doe” case that occurred in 1982. Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.

So, will this refutation of the baseless charge stop the Left? Of course not. Even after he is confirmed, the Democrats will keep repeating the accusation. It is what they do. It is telling how far they are willing to stoop to stop Gorsuch. It shows he is the right guy for the SCOTUS

One of the things you may have noticed in the past couple of weeks is that some liberal pundits are claiming that ObamaCare is essentially a public relations problem: The program is just wonderful, but there have been some P.R. problems with the rollout.

Democratic leaders claim the bungled launch of Obamacare is just the latest news sensation — a media-stirred tempest that looks in the heat of the moment like it could upend the midterm election, but ends up fizzling well before voters head to the polls.Some party strategists say they’re in denial.

And that perceived gap between party spin and facts on the ground is fueling worries that the White House and Democratic higher-ups aren’t taking the possible electoral blowback seriously enough or doing enough to shield their candidates. Democratic contenders in the toughest races are distinctly less convinced that Obamacare will fade as an election-year issue — and they can’t afford to just cross their fingers that things get ironed out or that Republicans revert to political hara-kiri.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a forum hosted by BuzzFeed recently that the rollout won’t “hurt us in 2014,” adding that “we’re proud” of the law. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a recent appearance on CNN, went so far as to assert that Obamacare would be “an advantage” for Democratic candidates next year.

“Democrats will run on the Affordable Care Act and win,” she has also told reporters.

The White House, meanwhile, has come across as equally dismissive of Obamacare’s consequences for 2014.

We are starting to see a broad polling trend for Barack Obama, and it should have the White House worried — but maybe Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress even more. The latest CNN poll confirms what the Washington Post/ABC poll first noticed, and what the CBS poll corroborated — Obama’s approval decline involves more than just his performance. The Americans public is souring on Obama as a person and as a brand, and that spells real trouble for his agenda . . . .

President Obama will not be on the ballot in 2014 or 2016, but the American people will be angry with him, and guess who else? His fellow Democrats, and likely any nominee the Democrats put forward in 2016. They will take the losses, and then the only question is will the GOP use enough common sense to reap the electoral benefits?

Like this:

A proposed amendment to the state’s Republican Party bylaws would allow the removal of the Alabama College Republicans chairwoman, who spoke out in favor of same-sex marriage in June, from the party’s steering committee.

Following the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act in June, chairwoman and University of Alabama student Stephanie Petelos spoke to AL.com about the generational divide between party leadership and young conservatives on the issue.

She told Buzzfeed the comments reportedly infuriated party leaders, who began attempting then to remove her from the steering committee.

Good Grief! This is the kind of thing that always bugs me. we are not Liberals, we ought to be able to have a difference of opinion on such an issue. As Stephen Green points out this will not help get the youth vote

Sure, the state party can make its own rules and bylaws. That’s its job, after all. But to change those bylaws to target one person for making a personal statement which is pretty much the freakin’ norm for college kids?

BINGO!

Share this:

Like this:

It might seem a bit harsh to judge Salon so harshly, but, as Stacy McCain points out, Salon is the Most Worthless Internet Site, Period. He should know, he reads it so we do not have to. I have read Salon’s stuff, it is like watching MSNBS. Sure it is a Tree of Low-Hanging Blogging Fruit, but the mind numbingly bad writing at Salon can cause severe brain irritation, and, if given a choice between reading salon, and watching MSNBS, well I think Stacy McCain sums up my feelings

Which is worse, herpes or syphilis? Herpes is incurable, but the ravages of syphilis can be deadly. This is a story about the liberal media, however, not sexually transmitted diseases . . .

Of course watching MSNBS, or reading Salon can prove as harmful to your love life as an STD. If you think having to explain that “prescription strength cream” your significant other found in your medicine cabinet is bad, try explaining why you read Salon, or watch MSNBS. Talk about a relationship killer! McCain goes on about the utter failure that Salon, and all “progressive media” is

While AOL paid gazillions for HuffPo, and BuzzFeed is now estimated to be worth gazillion-times-infinity, nobody has ever hazarded a guess of the value of Salon.com, a site that has been losing massive sums of money constantly since the days of dial-up modems.

Because there are no other “progressive” sites on the Internet, you see, and if these investors didn’t keep pouring money into that courageousSalon.com, then Newt Gingrich would take over America and suddenly TV would be in black-and-white again, or something.

Nobody ever pays attention to Salon except in the sense of, “Did you see that stupid/gross/utterly wrong thing they published at Salon?”

My point is that nobody really pays attention to Salon except gigantic inflatable dildos like Lawrence O’Donnell, who evidently had anapoplectic fit because this IRS Scandal (NOT) story failed to mention that Lawrence O’Donnell invented IRS Scandal (NOT) stories.

Of course, O’Donnell has a fit every time the wind blows, that is what he does, he works for MSNBS, where being a gigantic inflatable dildo is a prerequisite for a gig on one of their shows, how else do you explain Martin Bashir getting his own show? But, the larger point is that America, as a nation, does not embrace Progressive causes. Air America failed, talk radio is dominated by Conservative hosts, not crackpot Progressive’s. Salon, FAIL! MSNBS FAIL! Their are only two reasons anyone follows “progressive media”. For laughs and easy blogging material, or because you are a Progressive crackpot who actually buys the tons on BS spewed by Progressives. And the fact is there are just not enough crackpots that WANT to read Salon, watch MSNBS, or listen to Thom Hartman for anyone to take them seriously. Yet, investors keep shoveling money into those pits of Progressive failure.

McCain, who hates O’Donnell as much as I do, closes his post with this Tweet asking the age old question which is worse a pack of rabid jackals or a Gigantic Inflatable Dildo named Lawrence?

Like this:

Yep, John Huntsman, of the Charlie Crist/Dede Scozzafava Wing of the Republican Party is auditioning to be “That” Republican. “That” Republican being the Republican that the media will fawn over because “that” Republican will throw Conservatives under the bus, painting the Right as “nutty” or ” out of touch”. In short “That” Republican, be it Davis Frum, David Brooks, Charlie Crist, Meghan McCain, or John Huntsman is willing to be a useful idiot for the media.Stacy McCain, like me, is, shall we say NOT a fan of Huntsman

Former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman took a battle axe to his own party, comparing it to China’s Communist Party and criticizing it’s standard bearer in a wide-ranging interview at the 92nd Street Y Sunday night.Recounting his first experience on the presidential debate stage in Iowa last August, Huntsman says he was struck by the question “Is this the best we could do?”Huntsman, the former Utah governor and once President Barack Obama’s Ambassador to China, expressed disappointment that the Republican Party disinvited him from a Florida fundraiser in March after he publicly called for a third party. . . .“So I had to say I believe in science — and people on stage look at you quizzically as though you’re was an oddball,” Huntsman said, explaining why he was “toast” in Iowa. . . .On foreign policy, Huntsman questioned his former Republican opponents’ hard-line positions on China. “I don’t know what world these people are living in,”he said, not naming Mitt Romney by name.

That was Monday, Jan. 16, just six days after he called his third-place finish in New Hampshire a “ticket to ride” and barely five months after the Aug. 11 Fox News debate in Ames, Iowa, where I first dubbed him “Governor Asterisk.” From the outset, his candidacy lacked any plausible rationale. One might call Jon Huntsman a “useful idiot,” but this would immediately prompt the question, “What actual use did he serve?” He never had any “path to the nomination,” and his faux campaign existed only to garner glowing coverage from the liberal media, to hog up time in televised debates, and to enrich the ruthless campaign consultants who somehow managed to convince him he had a chance.

So here we are in April, three months after he endorsed Romney and pleaded for “party unity,” and Chumpsman is publicly trashing the GOP? Once more we must ask: “What the f–k was that all about?”

It is all about getting a show on CNN or MSNBS maybe, or maybe just a personal vendetta. Or maybe Huntsman is mad at the GOP voters for being too “stupid” to vote for him. No wonder, since all he did was kick Conservatives in the teeth with his pompous act in the campaign. Frankly, Huntsman sounded more like a Liberal every debate. And now, he is going to try to teach us rubes us all a lesson. But, he is too irrelevant to matter.

Share this:

Like this:

(BuzzFeed) — The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren — the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism — made the case to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn’t own stock.

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told him.

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

What she means is this. She is “rich” but she is excused from being one of those evil 1%ers because she is a flaming leftist you see. Sure she is, technically rich, but she believes that rich, er OTHER rich folks should be punished by heavy tax burdens so that the “workers” can benefit. Like lots of elitists Warren would never willingly live by the rules she dictates for others.

Exit question. When will all the OWS types figure out that they are being screwed over by the likes of Warren?